Chaseling v TVH Australasia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 74 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chaseling v TVH Australasia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWDC 24
Hearing dates:21, 22 & 23 February 2011
Decision date: 15 April 2011
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:

1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $712,275;

2.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3.The exhibits may be returned;

4.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - motor vehicles -- palletted load of boxes dislodged from tynes of forklift truck reversing down a portable ramp whilst unloading a shipping container - injury to plaintiff standing nearby - load dislodged and fell on plaintiff - whether due to negligence of driver - whether there was contributory negligence - whether injury occurred during or in the use or operation of a motor vehicle within meaning of s 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999;
DAMAGES - assessment of heads of damage claimed by plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 3
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 26; (2005) 221 CLR 658
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15; (1991) 172 CLR 60
Inasmuch Community v Bright & Anor [2008] NSWCA 99
JA & BM Bowden & Sons Pty Ltd v Doughty [2009] NSWCA 82
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; 205 CLR 254
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Tchen v Nominal Defendant [2010] NSWCA 245
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] 223 CLR 442
Zotti v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited [2009] NSWCA 323
Texts Cited: -
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Chaseling (Plaintiff)
TVH Australasia Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation: Mr M Perry (Plaintiff)
Mr PN Khandhar (Defendant)
Taylor & Scott (Plaintiff)
Hicksons (Defendant)
File Number(s):2009/336695
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

Table of Contents

A.INTRODUCTION
Nature of the case [1]
Issues[2] - [3]
Credit [4]
Summary of findings [5]
Assessed heads of damage [6]
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Facts [7] - [64]
Plaintiff's personal history [8] - [9]
Circumstances of injury to the plaintiff [10] - [17]
Injuries [18] - [19]
Treatment [20] - [26]
Medical and allied reviews [27] - [57]
Disabilities that remain [58] - [60]
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chaseling v TVH Australasia Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] NSWDC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chaseling v TVH Australasia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained when a palletted load of boxes dislodged from the tynes of a forklift truck operated by an employee of the defendant. The incident occurred as the forklift was reversing down a portable ramp to unload a shipping container. The plaintiff, who was standing nearby, was struck and injured by the falling boxes. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the injury was caused by the negligence of the driver of the forklift, whether the plaintiff had contributed to the injury through their own negligence, and whether the injury occurred during or in the use or operation of a motor vehicle as defined by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate assessment of the heads of damage claimed by the plaintiff.

The court found that the driver of the forklift was negligent in his handling of the vehicle, leading to the dislodgement of the load. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not contributory negligent. Regarding the statutory issue, the court concluded that the injury occurred during the operation of a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act. The court assessed the plaintiff's damages, considering medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering, and awarded a total of $712,275.

The court ordered that judgment and verdict be entered in favour of the plaintiff, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis. The exhibits were to be returned, and the parties were granted liberty to apply for further orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $712,275;

2.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3.The exhibits may be returned;

4.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.